The concept of “forever wars” has been a common criticism of the US foreign policy, with both external opponents and political insiders, particularly Republicans, using it in recent years. According to a collective intelligence on the internet, the US has been at war for 92% of its existence, which amounts to 225 years out of 243 (as of 2020). While it may be difficult to classify these calculations as methodologically sound, few experts would dispute the notion that the US has been in a perpetual state of war.
Different and at times quite exotic, explanations have been put forward to explain this phenomenon. In Foreign Policy, one author suggested that the US foreign policy thinking is extremely archaic and that war is a form of foreign policy ritual and a cult. This may sound like the plot of a fantasy novel, but it has a rational core. Some US politicians truly believe that the United States is chosen to bring freedom and prosperity to the world. However, without an economic framework, it will not go far.
US political scientist and conservative commentator Richard Hanania, in his recently published book “Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy: How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers and Foreign Governments Shape American Foreign Policy” has emphasized the economic aspect of “forever wars.” His main argument is that the military-industrial complex of the US possesses enormous political resources and actually lobbies for a permanent involvement in conflicts. While it is beyond question that companies like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon have a great interest in military conflicts, the author argues that they influence public opinion and bring their people into the country’s power structures.
The key figure who determines US foreign policy (taking into account all controls and counterweights) is, of course, the US President. And here we need to understand that the US political system and the mechanisms of power struggle only allow certain types of people to pass through. They are mostly extremely charismatic, capable of persuading, making deals and mediating among the major players. Do these required qualities include a deep knowledge and understanding of foreign policy? No. US presidents and presidential candidates have little incentive to engage with these issues. The US president is a person who primarily knows how to deal with public opinion and follow it in many ways. The duration of his stay in the Oval Office is limited to eight years and during this time, there is no possibility of formulating a clear long-term geostrategic program and waiting for its fruits. Therefore, most powerholders in the White House prefer to follow public opinion, which means that anyone can influence a US president, even in foreign policy issues, through public opinion manipulation.
For this reason, the US defense contractors are so eager to establish think tanks and finance foreign policy experts who, in turn, influence public opinion. The most scandalous think tank in this regard is the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) foundation. Their analyses may vary in ideological orientation but ultimately always call for the expansion and deepening of US military presence worldwide. However, it is not so much about what they say but how they implement their personnel policy. As it happens, one of the project’s directors, Bruce Jackson, was also the vice-president for strategy and planning at Lockheed Martin, one of the White House’s most important contractors in the field of defense. Paul Wolfowitz, who served as the first deputy secretary of defense in George W. Bush Jr.’s first cabinet, is also rumored to have a close connection to the Project for the New American Century (although the exact extent of the connection is difficult to determine). Interestingly, Wolfowitz had already worked in Bush Senior’s cabinet as one of the undersecretaries for defense policy and was one of the authors of the Wolfowitz Memorandum document.
It is important to note that such analytical foundations and experts do not so much shape public opinion in the US but rather create the illusion of a war-supporting consensus in the US society, which the top officials already orient themselves towards.
However, as the saying goes, the king is carried by his entourage and there is a large number of Pentagon bureaucrats and lawmakers that also need to be motivated. Among them, an iron triangle of power has emerged: the military is interested in more resources, the senators are partly ideologically driven, partly need money and the defense contractors want new government contracts.
Studies by the Quincy Institute have shown that 80% of US four-star generals and admirals in retirement do not fish and play with their grandchildren, but work as consultants or board members for defense contractors. People who have reached such ranks understand very well what is expected of them and begin to exaggerate foreign political threats (political scientists call this threat inflation) in their reports to the extent possible, so that an increase in military spending appears to be a justified and necessary measure.
US lawmakers (those who are not fanatics) are also attached to a similar money hook. A recent journalistic investigation revealed that at least 15 lawmakers responsible for defense have invested in military companies, which means they have a vested interest in the development of these firms’ businesses. Other lawmakers, who avoid an obvious conflict of interest, always have the thought in the back of their minds that their political career could come to an end and therefore it is important that they have powerful friends who will not abandon them and place them in some symbolic position with a very good salary in some research center.
“Forever wars” may be an ideology for some, but in the first place, it is a proven system that has developed over the years. And that is why it is hard to imagine that anyone (even at the highest level) could bring it down. Sergei Lebedev is a Russian political scientist. He is a professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.